To be fair to Walsh, I think itâs quite possible that the story he heard from TH differed to what we heard in court last week. And given the mental health issues that TH faced, for Walsh he might have bought into what TH said even more. He wouldnât have had a book of evidence or anything to verify what he was being told.
That said, he was at the very least naive. Going to bat so publically is career suicide and extremely insensitive. Obviously the context is different 5 years later, but what I found so remarkable about Walshâs words in that 2012 interview was that he seemed to value THâs journalist pedigree so highly that it was almost on the same level as his friendship with him as to why he was defending him.
The only way I can view that in any kind of decent light is a line that was in RTEâs court report last week. Is it possible itâs what he was referring to?
"Mr Hartnett said it was possible to see from the reports that Mr Humphries may have suffered from impaired judgment at the time due to neurological issues outlined by medical reports.
He said while the medical evidence would not be enough to prove a defence of insanity or lack of intent, it may have been a factor in his judgment and he asked the judge to take it into account."
I agree with you. I just think that when we look at his comments now or even the reference, you have to account for him being spun a yarn. Ridiculously stupid and insensitive thing to do. I can understand defending a friend but my biggest issue with his 2012 comments were that he seemed to take into account THâs journalistic pedigree as one reason why he should be defended before we heard the evidence.